Lookism, fat acceptance, beauty

[TC]

I'm curious, in part because of some of the other debates going on here and in the CC, what are people's feelings about the concept of lookism?

Do you think the concept refers to a real phenomenon? If so, is it bigotry equal to other prejudices?

If so, when, if ever, is it okay to discriminate on the grounds of looks? When choosing sexual partners? When choosing friends?

Is it okay to discriminate against some looks but not others (the anti-thin-people campaign ironically named 'anybody' seems to think that the state should censure images and public exposure of thin people while encouraging

If a girlfriend or boyfriend gets fat, is that a legitimate reason to break up with them? What if they lose a lot of weight and look too thin? What if they lose their hair? What if they just start looking old?

Are 'conventionally attractive' people seen as such because of our biology or because of a vast conspiracy of cosmetics companies, fashion designers, magazine editors, pornographers, cosmetic surgeons, and other mean corporate types to oppress women and maybe men?

Are there no standards of beauty? Is inner beauty all thats important, or all that should be important?

Is it wrong for people to judge others by their looks?

Is cosmetic surgery oppressive, liberating, or morally neutral? How about make up? Is it less good if it isn't 'real.'

Are women who make a significant effort to look good for co-workers, lovers, friends, strangers, etc, complicit in their oppression? are they oppressing other women? How about when men do it, is that oppressive?


Is it wrong for widely desirable people to dismiss out of hand the possibility that they'd ever date someone who was much less attractive? Or do they not really do that at all, can anyone really get with anyone else because looks don't really matter?

Is there something inherently sexist about taking looks into consideration in any field? Is it racist?


Anyways, this is more a thread to solicit ideas and opinions and to see where people stand on things then an attempt to make any particular point. I really have no idea what direction this thread will go, if any. Here are some websites for reference:

Anti-"Lookist" group in germany that claims that "lookism" is sexist and racist:
http://www.lookism.info/eng/index2.html

A british "body acceptance" group that wants the government to ban depictions of thin people in fashion and stages demonstrations with signs promoting overweightness and condemning thin people as "body haters":
http://www.any-body.org/

The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, American pro-fat organization.
http://www.naafa.org/

PETA, is unusual among activist organizations in unashamedly selling their message with conventionally attractive (often semi-nude or nude) models and suggesting that their political opponents are fat and less attractive:

http://blog.peta.org/archives/2007/06/dear_michael_mo.php
http://peta.org/

Article on a scary and patronizing German anti-fat campaign
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3564/

[bezdomni]

This sounds like something only an ugly person would think about.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 05:14 pm
This sounds like something only an ugly person would think about.
I would strongly support forms of discrimination based on perceived beauty or ugliness. I think the question is moot though, even those against the idea do it anyways. I wouldn’t believe you if you denied having someone’s looks influence your opinions of them.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think that unattractive people are certainly treated and looked at differently by many, but it's not an institutionalized form of social oppression. I would say it's more like a subtle form of "bullying." But it doesn't only have to do with looks, but also with whether a person is well-dressed and well-groomed. Basically, there are a lot of prejudicial ass-holes in the world.

The fashion and marketing industry are also king of ass-holes.

Somebody is to blame for the establishment and promulgation of the present standards of beauty that people subject themselves to when they read certain magazines and watch pornography.

[Genosse Kotze]

Listen, having preferences isn't discriminatory at all, but looks really should be of peripheral significance. Unfortunately however, they're not and "lookism" (a term I've never heard before but absolutely dig!) is a serious problem, which mirrors all the other forms of antagonism which are so often discussed here.

People who are considered attractive always receive preferential treatment and are constantly lavished with praise for every single fucking thing they do. More often than not they become very arrogant and snobbish as a result. The archetypal "mean girl" is what I have in mind here.

Their other merits, or lack thereof, are entirely glanced over as well. Just like how some actors used to play roles as mentally disabled people in a patronizing, and vain attempt to show they've got some talent, some Hollywood actresses, whose sole job in movies are to just look pretty on screen, every now and again, will "go ugly" in a movie for the same purposes (Cameron Diaz in Being John Malkovich, Charlize Theron in Monster, Nicole Kidman in The Hours etc..). Now I understand why they try and do this, but just doing away with something that may be masking real talent, doesn't, all of a sudden, reveal talent that quite frankly isn't there for some of them. Sorry Cameron Diaz, but you suck! Back to the drawing board--in other words, back to the set of yet another Charlies' Angles filck before you're too old to do it anymore.

Now, the argument "I can't help it if I'm beautiful" shouldn't totally be snubbed, but then again, someone born into the Rockefeller family can't help being a Rockefeller, yet we don't excuse their conduct in society though, so why should good-looking people be pardoned for acting monstrous just because they happened to be lucky enough to be born with traits, which at the moment are considered desirable?

Looks are seriously waaaaaaay too over valued in our society and it's fucking everybody up. What psychologists are calling "body dismorphic disorder" is just the internalized oppression of ridiculous beauty standards, and unfortunately people with this problem have a lot to be mad about but have unfortunately turned their hate against themselves as opposed to what is valued in a capitalist culture gone completely insane. What is valued as beautiful now, and has been in the past is often very fucked and oppressive. Foot binding? Yeah, I get a total boner watching hobbled women struggling to walk! Corsetry? What asshole had that bright one day to say "Hey, you know what would be really hot? If we made breathing a real struggle for women!" And today, we have plastic surgery, where people will go an mutalte themselves every other week to keep up with whatever some magazine is saying is "hot" this season

It's high time we put an end to the tyrannical rule of the beautiful-bourgeoisie!

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by SovietPants+July 09, 2007 05:14 pm--> (SovietPants @ July 09, 2007 05:14 pm) This sounds like something only an ugly person would think about. [/b]

:lol:

On the subject at hand, I just looked up "lookism" on Wikipedia, and it describes it as "discrimination against or prejudice towards others based on their appearance." And, based on that description, I'd say that it probably is a real world phenomena -- certainly in terms of prejudice.

But I really doubt -- though I may be wrong, and if anyone has evidence contradicting this then I'm willing to see it -- it is structural, like racism and sexism.

Instead, I'd say it's probably a fundamental part of human psyche. To some extent, we judge people based on their appearances -- and we then make our judgements of them, based on this and our own personal, subjective standards. And that is probably the one thing that means "lookism" isn't, and can't ever be, comparable to sexism and racism.

After all, everyone has their own subjective preferences. I know I do, and I know that others have their own. So given that there is no distinct group -- no "black" or "woman", if you will -- and that there's little chance of there ever being one, I really don't think you could have significant, structural oppression here.

If there was, the Houses of Parliament wouldn't look like they do. Because off hand, I can't really think of one especially attractive MP; either male or female.

Of course, that doesn't mean that certain jobs require people who look a certain way. A hairdresser usually needs to have nice hair and be well dressed; someone working in a shop like Debenhams, generally needs to be well presented; and so on and so forth.

But, fundamentally, you don't need to be breathtakingly attractive to get these jobs. You just need to present yourself in a certain manner. Which can be achieved by the overwhelming majority of the worlds inhabitants.

And if you don't believe me, just look at any makeover show. On those shows, thousands of "dowdy" looking women, usually middle aged mothers, are made reasonably attractive by someone just doing their hair nicely and dressing them in a certain manner.

As I said, there isn't really a "black" here. Something which cannot be changed, and makes a distinct social group.


TragicClown
Are 'conventionally attractive' people seen as such because of our biology or because of a vast conspiracy of cosmetics companies, fashion designers, magazine editors, pornographers, cosmetic surgeons, and other mean corporate types to oppress women and maybe men?

I think this is actually an interesting question, if we look at it from a different angle.

That is, instead of asking whether it is a "vast conspiracy" conducted by various companies that has led to a widespread image of what is and isn't attractive. We should ask what affect does the mainstream image have on our own personal and subjective preferences?

Because, generally speaking, there is a mainstream image of what is and isn't beautiful.

Yet personally, I don't find someone like Kate Moss attractive. Well I don't find her that attractive anyway. She's good looking, yeah; and thin, and well proportioned, and all that. But she's not my dream girl, not by any stretch.

Indeed I'd personally say, and I have seen photos of her before someone thinks I'm a stalker, that Tragic is more attractive than Kate Moss. Yet as I'm sure others will confirm, Tragic is not conventionally good looking -- that is, she ain't going to appear on America's Next Top Model any time soon.

So what affect does the mainstream media have on our subjective desires? Not a lot, in my personal opinion. And I think even the media have realised this -- given how we seem to be seeing a diversion of sorts, from the good looking stereotype. Which is frighteningly Aryan, if you ask me. <_<

Funnily enough, this diversion may have been caused by the era of reality TV. Suddenly, average men and women have become stars. They&#39;ve become the apples in our eyes. Along with their quirky features that, for years, have been portrayed as unattractive.

As I said, this is an interesting question. And one that probably has, or at should have been, looked into on a wider scale, by those who work in this particular field of human study.
_ _ _ _ _

The other questions you posed Tragic, seem to me anyway, to deal more with morality than anything objective.

Asking whether it is appropriate to dump someone based on them gaining weight, for example, is a question you can only answer by saying whether you personally think it is morally right. Because objectively, people do do this; and it&#39;s just a matter of opinion whether this makes them a bastard or not.

[Genosse Kotze]

Instead, I&#39;d say it&#39;s probably a fundamental part of human psyche. To some extent, we judge people based on their appearances -- and we then make our judgements of them, based on this and our own personal, subjective standards. And that is probably the one thing that means "lookism" isn&#39;t, and can&#39;t ever be, comparable to sexism and racism.


Well, what is racism other than a very accute form of lookism? Many people here make the claim that race isn&#39;t something that&#39;s real. If this is the case, than the oppression of diffrent "races" is pure lookism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

You&#39;re missing my point here, Genosse Kotze. What I was saying, is that attractiveness is far to subjective for there to ever be distinct social groups. You know, "ugly people" and "beautiful people". Where as race, as a social construct, can and does lead to distinct social groups.

And structural oppression -- like racism and sexism -- requires distinct social groups. Whether those social groups can be scientifically verified, like men and women, or not, like race, is of little consequence. All that matters is that they can be created -- which is obviously not the case with regards looks.


Originally posted by Genosse Kotze
If this is the case, than the oppression of diffrent "races" is pure lookism.

No, it&#39;s structured economic, social and political oppression.

[bezdomni]

All you have to do is look at the U.S. senate or British House of Commons to notice that there isn&#39;t systematic social oppression against the fat and ugly.

[Genosse Kotze]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:07 pm
All you have to do is look at the U.S. senate or British House of Commons to notice that there isn&#39;t systematic social oppression against the fat and ugly.
And all we have to do is look at barack obama to see that black people aren&#39;t oppressed, isn&#39;t that right? Yes, fat, crusty old men rule over Amerikkka and I suppose the UK as well, but in basically all aspects of life "beautiful people" are pampered,coddled, praised and shown favoritism at every level and it&#39;s bullshit.

[rouchambeau]

All you have to do is look at the U.S. senate or British House of Commons to notice that there isn&#39;t systematic social oppression against the fat and ugly.

All you have to do is look at Oprah to notice that there isn&#39;t systematic social oppression against black people.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Fat people, that is, people who are slightly over weight, have a beer gut, a bit podgy, function totally normally within society.

They aren&#39;t discriminated more than anyone else.

Extremely obese people are, because, frankly its incredibly unhealthy and we all know it and they look unhealthy to us so we instinctually don&#39;t find them attractive unless you have a fetish for that.

Same goes for people who are too thin. Like, if you have ever met a girl with an eating disorder, you can tell they look way worse than if they were a normal weight because they look ill when you stand them next to a person who is a normal weight.

Like look at Christian Bale here http://www.expat-at-large.com/pm/images/uploads/stickman.jpg

[coda]

Bleeshh.. is that Christian Bale in "The Mechanic."

I think they&#39;ve done semi-scientific studies on this type of thing before on those hard science programs &#39;20/20&#39;, &#39;DateLine" etc.

i recall they once put the stereo-typical thin pretty girl on the street and had her ask for help --don&#39;t remember-all the details, - maybe she was dropping packages or some shit.. people came to her rescue, ..... then, a couple hours later put her in a fat suit, did the same thing... an people were bee-lining to avoid her.

They&#39;ve done this setup in various different scenarios--- blonde girl vs. brown-haired girl (same girl with wig or hair dye) thin vs. fat; tall vs. short. The latter of the two is shown to be discriminated, or rather prejudicial via rudeness against her in a casual way.

i would say there is atleast regional cultural preferences dictating this to some degree, that we&#39;ve been fed over time through tv and print.

i don&#39;t think aesthetics has life-altering implications though. i&#39;t&#39;s nothing like what the white man discovered when he assumed life as a black man in 1959 for the social experiment "Black Like Me." And if nobody has read this classic book, i highly recommend it. Especially for those who think race does not matter and are looking at oprah and Obama as the typical example. they are the very rare exceptions&#33;&#33;&#33; nothing much as changed since &#39;59.

by the way, i have never seen an ugly person in my life. It&#39;s all the way you look at it and judge people.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:39 pm

All you have to do is look at Oprah to notice that there isn&#39;t systematic social oppression against black people.
Um...Oprah and Barack Obama are exceptions to the rule.

I think that this question is actually a very difficult to answer because of the subjective nature of what we find attractive.

The oppression of blacks is objective and rooted in history, the marginalization of the "unattractive" is very dependent on contemporary culture and what is considered attractive by most people at the time.